Board of Supervisors — 2023-12-05

CEO’s Report

• The Santa Barbara Hearing Room reopened after four months of upgrades, including new LED lighting, audio systems, and ADA-compliant features.
• County staff received industry awards, including the County Counsel’s office being named a Family Friendly Law Firm and the Public Works Director named Engineer of the Year.
• The board approved a continuance for the Tahequs Landfill item to the January 9, 2024, meeting.

EMS Ambulance Transport Administrative Salary Resolution Amendment

• The board considered a Fire Department recommendation regarding an amendment to the EMS ambulance transport administrative salary resolution.
• Discussion noted that a pending motion for a preliminary injunction in American Medical Response v. County could impact future county actions.
• The board voted to approve the resolution amendment.

Employee of the Month Resolution

• The board adopted a resolution honoring Jason Womack of the Information Technology Department as the December 2023 Employee of the Month.
• Mr. Womack and ITD Director Chris Sherwick were present to receive the recognition.

Theatrical Contributions Resolution

• The board adopted a resolution honoring Jonathan Fox for his theatrical contributions to Santa Barbara County.
• The resolution cited his role as Executive Artistic Director of the Santa Barbara Ensemble Theater Company and his involvement in the Victoria Hall Theater renovation.

Retirement Honor Resolution

• The board adopted a resolution honoring George Chapchian, Director of the Community Services Department, upon his retirement.
• The resolution recognized his over 30 years of service and leadership in parks, housing, arts, and sustainability.

SunCalHealth Anniversary Resolution

• The board adopted a resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of SunCalHealth in Santa Barbara County.
• The resolution noted SunCalHealth’s role as a publicly funded healthcare program for low-income residents and its status as the oldest Medicaid-only managed care program of its kind.

2023 Grand Jury Reports Response

• Staff presented proposed responses to four Grand Jury reports regarding the county jail and behavioral health care, noting statutory limitations on the board's response options.
• The board voted to adopt the staff recommendations for the Grand Jury response as printed.
• The board directed the CEO’s office and impacted departments to explore a Quality Assurance Advisory Board for jail health issues.
• The board voted to hold a public workshop or study session prior to the budget process to discuss these issues further.

WellPath Annual Report and Jail Healthcare Oversight

• WellPath presented its 2022 annual report, highlighting the expansion of Medication-Assisted Treatment and the Jail-Based Competency Treatment program.
• Staff proposed structural changes to increase public health oversight, including placing a Public Health clinician on-site at the jail and Juvenile Hall.
• The board approved the staff recommendation to receive the annual report and provide direction regarding public health monitoring and oversight.

Housing Element Update (Case No. 22GPA2)

• Staff presented the 2023–2031 Housing Element Update, identifying a shortfall in capacity to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for lower- and moderate-income households.
• The initial motion to approve the Housing Element failed due to concerns about prescribed future board actions and the concentration of units in specific areas.
• Upon reconsideration, the board voted to adopt the Housing Element and authorize staff to submit it to the State HCD for a final conformity determination.

Closed Session

• The board met in closed session to consider an application by Caltrans for an order apportioning maintenance costs for the Butterfly Lane crossing.
• The board also conferred with labor negotiators for the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff’s Association.
• No reportable action was taken during the closed session.

Meeting Opening and Pledge of Allegiance

• The December 5, 2023, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The roll was called, and all five supervisors were present. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes

• Item: Approval of the minutes from the November 28, 2023, meeting.
• Action: A motion to approve was made and seconded.
• Vote: Passed unanimously.

CEO’s Report

• The County Executive presented three announcements: 1. Hearing Room Upgrades: Chief Deputy Jacqueline Alexander announced the reopening of the Santa Barbara Hearing Room after a four-month closure for upgrades. Improvements included LED lighting, upgraded audio systems, an ADA-compliant motorized podium, assisted listening devices, 4K displays with closed captioning, a fully upgraded broadcast system, Zoom/codec integration, a wireless presentation system, and the integration of the Granicus vote cast system. 2. Awards: The County Counsel’s office was named the 2023 Santa Barbara Women Lawyers Family Friendly Law Firm, and Senior Deputy Counsel Lisa Franklin was named Attorney of the Year by the same organization. Director of Public Works Scott McAulpin was named the 2023 Engineer of the Year by the State County Engineers Association. 3. Agenda Changes: The Clerk of the Board noted the use of new technology systems, which may require additional breaks. A continuance request was received for Administrative Item 13 (Public Works Department, regarding the Tahequs Landfill), requesting it be moved to the January 9, 2024, meeting. The Chair indicated that if there are 10 or more speakers on any item, public comment would be limited to two minutes per speaker.

Administrative Agenda – Balance of Items

• Item: Balance of the administrative agenda, excluding Item A-6, including the continuance request for Item 13.
• Action: A motion was made to move the balance of the agenda (including Item 13) to the January 9, 2024, meeting. The motion was seconded.
• Vote: Passed.

Administrative Item A-6: EMS Ambulance Transport Administrative Salary Resolution Amendment

• Item: Fire Department recommendation regarding an emergency medical service (EMS) ambulance transport administrative salary resolution amendment.
• Discussion: Supervisor Lavinino requested the item be pulled to understand the timeline regarding existing litigation (American Medical Response v. County). County Counsel explained that a hearing is scheduled for Friday regarding a motion for preliminary injunction filed by AMR, which could impact future county actions if granted. Supervisor Lavinino stated he would call for a roll call vote when the matter is fully addressed.
• Action: A motion to approve Item A-6 was made and seconded.
• Vote: Passed (4-1).

Ceremonial Items

• The Chair noted that clapping is permitted during ceremonial items.

Administrative Item A-16: Employee of the Month

• Item: Resolution honoring Jason Womack of the Information Technology Department as the December 2023 Employee of the Month.
• Action: The resolution was read into the record. Jason Womack and ITD Director Chris Sherwick were present. Mr. Womack provided a brief statement of gratitude.
• Decision: Passed and adopted.

Administrative Item A-18: Theatrical Contributions

• Item: Resolution honoring the theatrical contributions of Jonathan Fox in Santa Barbara County.
• Action: The resolution was read into the record, citing his role as Executive Artistic Director of the Santa Barbara Ensemble Theater Company and his involvement in the renovation of the Victoria Hall Theater. Mr. Fox provided a statement thanking the board and the community.
• Decision: Passed and adopted.

Administrative Item A-19: Retirement Honor

• Item: Resolution honoring George Chapchian, Director of the Community Services Department, upon his retirement.
• Action: The resolution was read into the record, citing his 30+ years of service and leadership in areas including parks, housing, arts, and sustainability. Mr. Chapchian provided a statement thanking his family, colleagues, and staff. Several supervisors provided remarks acknowledging his service and leadership.
• Decision: Passed and adopted.

Administrative Item A-20: SunCalHealth Anniversary

• Item: Resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of SunCalHealth in Santa Barbara County.
• Action: The resolution was read into the record, noting SunCalHealth’s role as a publicly funded healthcare program for low-income residents and its status as the oldest Medicaid-only managed care program of its kind. Marina Owen, CEO of SunCalHealth, provided a statement regarding the organization’s history and impact. Supervisor Hartman provided remarks regarding her service on the SunCalHealth board.
• Decision: Passed and adopted.

General Public Comment

• The Chair opened the floor for general public comment, noting there were 20 registered speakers and limiting each to two minutes. Speakers addressed the board primarily regarding the board’s November 7, 2023, resolution supporting the State of Israel and calls for a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
• Speakers expressed a range of views:
• Support for the Board’s Resolution: Several speakers commended the board for passing the resolution in support of Israel, citing the events of October 7, the killing of over 1,200 people, and the kidnapping of over 240 hostages. Speakers described the attack as unprovoked and characterized local demonstrations as condemning Israel for its self-defense campaign. One speaker urged solidarity with Israel during Hanukkah.
• Calls for Ceasefire/Recantation: Multiple speakers urged the board to pass a resolution for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, recant the previous resolution, or cut relations with Israel until a ceasefire is achieved. Speakers cited violations of international law, civilian casualties in Gaza, the destruction of homes and hospitals, and the Geneva Conventions. Some speakers described the situation as genocide or settler-colonial and called for an end to collective punishment.
• Other Comments: One speaker spoke on behalf of children asking for a permanent ceasefire. Another speaker, representing the Central Coast Anti-War Coalition and Jewish Voice for Peace, read a draft ceasefire resolution. One speaker stated they had no comment due to technical difficulties.
• The Clerk of the Board concluded general public comment. Chair Williams thanked speakers from all sides and stated the Board would keep its ears and hearts open to the suffering of all peoples.

Departmental Item Number 1 – Hearing to Consider Recommendations Regarding Responses to the 2023 Grand Jury Reports

Presentation by Staff

• CEO Miyasato: Opened the item by thanking the Grand Jury and noting that the reports were significant. The CEO acknowledged that statutory requirements limit the Board’s responses to specific categories (agree, disagree wholly, disagree partially) and that these responses may not fully capture the nuance of the issues. The CEO emphasized the Board’s alignment with the goal of improving mental health services in the criminal justice system.
• Assistant CEO Tanya Heitman: Presented proposed responses to four Grand Jury reports related to the county jail and behavioral health care.
• General Context: Heitman noted that the Board’s responses are limited by Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, requiring specific allowable responses.
• Report 1: "A Death in Custody Lessons Learned": Responses included agreeing with findings regarding lack of on-site mental health staff and insufficient data sharing, but disagreeing with recommendations to amend the WellPath contract for training or information sharing, citing existing contract terms and new legislation (AB 519, AB 268). The Board stated it lacks authority to direct Sheriff’s Office training.
• Report 2: "Every Death in Custody is a Failure": Responses included agreeing that inmates would be better protected with access to vital health info and that a legal opinion on information sharing was implemented. The Board disagreed with amending the WellPath contract for information sharing, noting it is already provided for under current terms and new legislation.
• Report 3: "A Vicious Cycle, Incarceration of the Severely Mentally Ill": Responses included agreeing with the premise that community treatment is less costly and more effective, but noting recommendations were aspirational. The Board stated it cannot direct DA filings or override legal release requirements.
• Report 4: "Death on Electronic Monitored Home Release": Responses included agreeing that participants need robust support systems and better information sharing.
• Progress Update: Heitman highlighted recent improvements including a rapid mental health diversion program, launch of behavioral health units in the jail, increased out-of-cell time, expanded data sharing committee, improved discharge planning, monthly coordination meetings, improved PUF admission/discharge protocols, a pilot for nighttime behavioral health crisis services, increased medication-assisted treatment, and decreased use of safety cells/restrictive housing.

Public Comment

• Stan Roden (Grand Jury Member): Requested the Board delay filing the response and hold a public workshop/roundtable. He explained that Grand Jury reports are limited in specificity due to confidentiality rules, creating a disconnect between the underlying facts and the Board’s technical responses. He argued that a roundtable would allow for better understanding of the facts driving the findings and improve the drafting of responses.
• Gail Osharenko: Supported the request for an open workshop. She expressed concern about the Sheriff/Coroner investigating deaths involving their own staff and called for independent review. She urged the Board to ask how many staff have received crisis intervention training and to delay the decision to allow for further discussion.
• Lynn Gibbs (NAMI/Families Act): Referenced a written statement recommending 24/7 mental health coverage in the jail. She expressed discouragement at the County’s disagreement with many recommendations but acknowledged the Board’s commitment. She supported the suggestion for a community forum and highlighted positive changes such as new mental health units and programming. She urged the Board to pay focused attention to the League of Women Voters’ recommendations.

Board Discussion

• Chair Williams: Suggested that if the Board delays action, it should invite input in advance (e.g., via a virtual roundtable) so that the input can affect the drafting of the responses, rather than trying to incorporate input at the time of the vote.
• Supervisor Capps: Expressed frustration with the technical limitations of Grand Jury responses. She supported delaying the item to allow for more substantive discussion and to avoid rejecting recommendations solely due to technicalities. She stated it would be difficult to stand by the recommendations as written.
• Supervisor Nielsen: Stated that the Board’s commitment to these issues continues regardless of the vote on the Grand Jury response. He suggested addressing the Grand Jury report legally as required but directing staff to continue discussions on the underlying issues. He was not convinced to delay the item, preferring to vote on the responses and then direct further staff work.
• Supervisor Hartman: Asked about the oversight process for the jail involving probation, public health, B-Well, and other agencies. She expressed concern that the Board is not adequately monitoring compliance with policies and the Murray decision. She requested direction for staff to develop a structure for inter-agency collaboration and oversight, similar to the PUF Governing Board model.
• Assistant CEO Heitman: Responded that there is no current mechanism for regular updates to the agencies mentioned by Supervisor Hartman regarding jail policies or data, aside from collaborative planning meetings. She acknowledged the PUF Governing Board model as a best practice to potentially mirror for jail health care oversight.
• Supervisor Hartman: Reiterated the need for a structure to ensure different actors (B-Well, Public Health, Probation) are working together and that the Board is fulfilling its legal responsibilities. She requested staff to present options for such a structure.
• Supervisor Lavagnino: Asked the Grand Jury member (Stan Roden) to clarify how a roundtable would work given Grand Jury secrecy rules.
• Stan Roden: Explained that while raw evidence is confidential, the Grand Jury could explain the public record findings in a forum to help the Board understand the context and "feel" the issues, which would aid in drafting responses. He urged the Board to take a "hands-on" approach to the problem.
• Supervisor Lavagnino: Acknowledged the Board’s commitment to the issues and the frustration with Grand Jury response limitations. He supported the idea of inter-agency collaboration similar to the PUF model but noted the Sheriff’s role.

Motions and Votes

• 1. Motion to Adopt Staff Recommendations for Grand Jury Response
• Moved by: Supervisor Nelson
• Seconded by: Supervisor Hartmann
• Discussion: Supervisor Lavagnino expressed support for the quality assurance aspect but opposed the public hearing component, citing concerns about setting a precedent for off-site meetings. Supervisor Nelson withdrew the public hearing portion of his initial motion to allow for separate consideration.
• Decision: The board voted to adopt the staff recommendations for the grand jury response as printed.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (3-2).
• 2. Motion to Direct Staff to Explore Quality Assurance Advisory Body
• Moved by: Supervisor Nelson
• Seconded by: Supervisor Hartmann
• Discussion: Supervisor Hartmann suggested using the term "quality assurance" rather than "oversight" to avoid loaded language. County Counsel suggested directing staff to look at options and report back to the board.
• Decision: The board voted to direct the CEO’s office and impacted departments to work with the Sheriff’s Department to explore a Quality Assurance Advisory Board/entity for these issues.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (Unanimous).
• 3. Motion for Public Study Session/Workshop Prior to Budget
• Moved by: Supervisor Capps
• Seconded by: Supervisor Hartmann
• Discussion: Supervisor Capps proposed a public study session prior to the budget process to dive deeper into the issues and understand resource needs. Supervisor Lavagnino opposed holding a separate public meeting outside of the regular board or budget workshop format, arguing it could set a problematic precedent and that budget workshops are the appropriate venue for such discussions. Supervisor Nelson supported the motion but acknowledged the caution regarding creating new meeting formats. Supervisor Hartmann supported the motion to allow for community conversation beyond the three-minute public comment limit.
• Decision: The board voted to hold a public workshop/study session prior to the budget process to discuss these issues.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (4-1).

Agenda Item: WellPath Annual Report for Health Care Services at Sheriff’s Office Detention Facilities

Discussion

• Sheriff Brown introduced the item, noting that correctional healthcare is challenging due to the health status of the incarcerated population. He stated that WellPath has provided care since 2018 and that their staff work alongside correctional staff 24/7. He emphasized that WellPath staff are valued colleagues and that the care provided is of high quality.
• Brian Smith, Regional Director of Operations for WellPath, presented the 2022 annual report. Key points included:
• Services: WellPath provides medical and mental health care in the main jail and Northern Branch Jail. They expanded the Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) program from 11 to 33 participants in 2022.
• Competency Treatment: The Jail-Based Competency Treatment (JBCT) program restored 107 patients to competency since its inception. The average time to restoration is 57 days. The Early Access Program, launched in September 2022, aims to stabilize individuals within three business days of being deemed incompetent to stand trial.
• In-Custody Deaths: There were four in-custody deaths in 2022, all related to substance abuse (methamphetamine or opioid overdose).
• Staffing: WellPath reported challenges in recruiting and retaining staff due to the broader healthcare crisis but noted some growth in staff numbers over the last year.
• CalAIM: WellPath is working on an implementation plan for CalAIM, focusing on discharge planning, collaboration with community partners, and closed-loop referral systems.
• Supervisor Hartmann asked about CalAIM preparation and how it would improve services. Dr. Corinne Khachaba, VP of Mental Health Innovations at WellPath, explained that CalAIM would provide a policy requirement for collaboration and a more unified approach to care, particularly regarding discharge planning and warm handoffs to community providers.
• Supervisor Capps asked about staffing challenges and benchmarks for competency restoration times. Dr. Khachaba explained that the 57-day average for restoration is fast compared to state hospital waits, which can be over a year. She noted that the Early Access Program has helped reduce the time individuals spend in the JBCT program by stabilizing them earlier.

Motions and Votes

• No motions were recorded in this section of the transcript. The item was presented for information and discussion.

Agenda Item: Jail Healthcare Oversight and WellPath Contract Administration

Discussion and Presentation

• The board discussed the monitoring of jail services and the proposed structure for public health oversight of the contracted healthcare provider, WellPath.
• Intake Metrics: A board member inquired about tracking the time it takes to see prospective inmates at booking, noting past issues with wait times affecting officer resources. The Sheriff’s Office representative stated that while they have a process to escalate excessive wait times in real-time, they are actively developing methods to track and benchmark the time from presentation to acceptance into the facility. They committed to providing more information on tracking methodologies in the future.
• Public Health Monitoring (Dr. Hammami): Dr. Hammami presented the current monitoring framework, which includes quarterly audits of medical records via remote access to the WellPath EMR. These audits review five categories: initial health assessment, tuberculosis screening, chronic care management, medication verification, and treatment plans. Current compliance rates range from 92% to 100%. Proposed enhancements include:
• Increasing the role of the Chief Medical Officer in quality control and medical advisory committees.
• Establishing a death and mortality review panel for every in-jail death.
• Reviewing clinical protocols and policies for alignment with CDC and NCCHC guidelines.
• Exploring new TB screening methods to address timing issues with skin tests.
• Monitoring healthcare implementation plans, SIP call timeliness, and discharge planning workflows in collaboration with Probation and the Sheriff’s Office.
• Structural Changes for Oversight (Tanya Heitman): Tanya Heitman presented recommendations to increase public health oversight, noting the current WellPath contract expires in approximately four months (March 2024). Key proposals include:
• Placing a Public Health clinician on-site at the jail and Juvenile Hall for healthcare oversight and compliance monitoring (not direct service).
• Ensuring ongoing access to WellPath’s electronic health records and data for Public Health and WellPath.
• Adding non-sworn staff to support administrative oversight of contract compliance.
• Defining roles and responsibilities in the contract extension, including Public Health reporting progress to the board.
• Utilizing corrective action plans and penalties as appropriate.
• The Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department will continue to provide contract administration.
• The proposal was developed in response to the September 12th board directive, the DRC litigation, and grand jury reports.
• Public Health and WellPath have already begun increased monitoring. The Sheriff and Probation intend to bring the next contract extension to the board for approval prior to April 2024.
• A consultant is assisting with the RFP to align with CalAIM and DRC stipulated agreement requirements.
• Public Health is anticipated to return to the board in mid-2024 to provide an update on compliance monitoring.

Board Questions and Comments

• Timing of Updates: A board member asked if Public Health could report sooner than mid-2024. Staff responded that meaningful data requires several monitoring cycles and staff hiring, and that the contract update timeline (expiring March 2024) is intertwined with the implementation of changes. Preliminary information may be available in spring 2024.
• Contract Sequencing: A board member asked if the board is on track to avoid the previous situation where a vote occurred six months into the contract. The Sheriff’s Office representative confirmed they are on track to negotiate and present the extension before the March 31st expiration.
• Operational Function: A board member asked how the increased partnership would function practically. Staff explained that on-site clinicians would observe operations firsthand (e.g., medication passes), provide real-time feedback to WellPath and Sheriff’s staff, and help align policies, moving beyond document-based monitoring.
• Authority and Compliance: A board member asked if the proposed changes address concerns raised by court-appointed experts regarding the lack of a clear county jail health authority. Dr. Hammami stated that placing a clinical representative in the jail day-to-day is a step forward to address these concerns, emphasizing that the outcome (appropriate care) is the priority, whether through partnership or full contract ownership.
• Legal Authority: A board member requested the County Counsel’s input on the statutory roles. The County Counsel stated that the Sheriff has sole and exclusive statutory authority to keep the county jail and prisoners, and is responsible for emergency and basic health care. The remedial plan does not change these authorities. The board and Sheriff have distinct statutory roles, with the board directing litigation and adopting the budget.

Public Comment

• Eight members of the public spoke. Comments generally focused on the following points:
• Several speakers urged the board to adopt "Option 3" or transfer final authority for medical oversight from the Sheriff’s Office to the County Public Health/Behavioral Health departments, citing the Murray stipulated judgment and remedial plan which they interpreted as requiring county-level monitoring.
• Speakers cited expert reports indicating substantial noncompliance with the remedial plan, particularly in mental health care, and argued that the Sheriff’s Office is not medically trained to oversee a healthcare contract.
• Some speakers expressed support for the incremental changes proposed by staff, viewing them as a step in the right direction while acknowledging they may not fully resolve the issues.
• Speakers emphasized the need for transparency, accountability, and regular progress reports to the board.
• One speaker noted the financial and staffing impacts of long booking wait times on partner cities and urged the board to include metrics on this in the contract renewal.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: A board member moved to approve the staff recommendation (Items A, B, and C), which includes receiving and filing WellPath’s annual report, providing direction regarding public health monitoring and oversight, and making the required CEQA finding.
• Second: The motion was seconded by another board member.
• Discussion on Motion: Board members expressed support for the incremental measure as a step in the right direction, while noting that if it is not successful, the board may look into further exercising potential constitutional powers in the future. One board member reiterated the importance of tracking booking wait times in the contract renewal.
• Vote: The motion passed. All those in favor said "aye." No opposition was recorded.

Closed Session

• The board reconvened from closed session. The County Counsel reported that the board met in closed session to consider one item of existing litigation: an application by Caltrans for an order apportioning maintenance costs for the crossing at Butterfly Lane (in front of the Public Utilities Commission) and a conference with labor negotiators for the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff’s Association. The board took no reportable action.

Agenda Item: Housing Element Update (Case No. 22GPA2)

Presentation

• The Planning and Development Department presented the 2023–2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) for adoption.
• Context: The update process was complex due to new state laws aimed at stimulating housing and limiting local discretion. The county faces a severe housing crisis with high rents and home prices, constraining residents and businesses.
• Purpose: The HEU is a state-mandated chapter of the comprehensive plan, updated every eight years. It must accommodate existing and projected housing needs for all income levels and household types.
• Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): The county’s RHNA for 2023–2031 is 5,664 units. Nearly 75% is allocated to the South Coast to address the jobs-housing imbalance. The county must identify suitable land to accommodate this allocation.
• Process: The adoption of the HEU is the first step. The second step, occurring in separate hearings in spring 2024, involves rezoning land and selecting county-owned sites to meet the RHNA.
• Housing Crisis Data:
• Senior households make up one-third of unincorporated county households; 37% are lower/moderate income.
• Over 43,000 people have disabilities; many live on fixed incomes.
• Nearly 28,000 farm workers have an average salary of $34,000 (extremely low income).
• Nearly 2,000 homeless persons, about 1,400 unsheltered.
• Median home values: $565,000 (North County), $1.93 million (South Coast).
• 47% of households are renters; 55% of renters are cost-burdened (>30% income on housing); 29% are severely cost-burdened (>50%).
• Average 2-bedroom rent is $2,667/month; required income to afford is ~$107,000/year, while average renter income is $62,000/year.
• Housing prices have risen exponentially relative to flat median incomes since the 1970s.
• Population projected to increase 13% by 2050; jobs projected to increase 26% by 2050.
• Housing production has declined; the county produced 37.5% fewer units in the last 20 years than in 1980–1999.
• 31,300 workers commute over 50 miles to the South Coast daily.
• No Net Loss Law: Requires local governments to identify and rezone additional sites within 180 days if they lack sufficient sites to meet RHNA. The county added a 15% buffer to its RHNA for lower and moderate income levels to avoid additional rezones.
• Document Structure: The HEU consists of a principal document with five chapters (Vision, Needs Summary, Constraints Assessment, Site Inventory, Housing Plan and Resources) and nine appendices. The presentation focused on Chapter 5 (Goals, Policies, and Programs).

Site Inventory and Capacity Analysis

• Staff presented the site inventory, a spreadsheet of approximately 450 parcels suitable for residential development to meet the county’s 2023–2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The inventory includes vacant sites under existing zoning, projected Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and pending projects.
• Vacant Sites: Identified using criteria such as location within or adjacent to urban areas, access to utilities, and lack of environmental constraints. These sites could contribute up to 1,800 units.
• ADUs: Projected based on 2015–2023 permit trends and rental data, including "no-rent" ADUs. These could contribute up to 800 units.
• Pending Projects: Included 30 county-permitted projects (2,171 units) and three UC Santa Barbara projects (735 units, all in the South Coast).
• Affordability Assumptions: For the South Coast, sites with density of 20+ units per acre are assumed to build 50% lower-income, 25% moderate-income, and 25% above-moderate-income units. For the North County, following Board direction on October 17, assumptions for sites with 20+ units per acre were altered to 65–75% lower-income, 25% moderate-income, and 0–10% above-moderate-income units. Other assumptions remain consistent countywide (e.g., 0–5 units/acre = 100% above-moderate; 6–18 units/acre = 100% moderate).
• Shortfall: Staff determined the county lacks capacity to meet the RHNA plus a 15% buffer, specifically for lower- and moderate-income households in the South Coast. The North County lacks units only for the lower-income requirement.

Proposed Rezone Sites and County-Owned Sites

• To accommodate the shortfall, staff identified potential rezone sites and county-owned sites.
• Rezone Sites: Staff examined over 1,000 sites. A minimum density of 20 units per acre was applied to sites accommodating lower-income units.
• South Coast: 18 potential sites identified with a total potential of 5,848 units, primarily in Eastern Goleta Valley, Goleta, and Carpinteria Valley.
• North County: 18 potential sites identified with a total potential of 2,300 units, primarily in Orcutt, Nuku’yama, Mission Hills, and Santa Ynez Valley.
• County-Owned Sites: Staff examined approximately 500 sites and identified nine suitable sites, all in the South Coast, with a potential for up to 320 units.
• Flexibility: More sites were identified than necessary to allow the Board flexibility to select or discard sites during the rezone process in early 2024.

Goals, Policies, and Programs (Chapter 5)

• Staff outlined Chapter 5 of the Housing Element, which contains six goals, 17 policies, 25 programs, and 99 actions.
• Goals: Include enhancing housing supply/affordability, promoting housing for special needs groups, affirmatively furthering fair housing, preserving affordable housing stock, fostering cooperative government, and promoting homeownership/affordable housing availability.
• Key Programs Discussed:
• Program 1 (Adequate Sites): Requires rezoning and monitoring of the site inventory to comply with No Net Loss Law. Actions include selecting county-owned sites and completing rezoning by February 15, 2024.
• Program 2 (Use by Right): Amends zoning ordinances to allow certain housing element sites to develop ministerially.
• Program 4 (Inclusionary Housing): Updates the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) by 2026, replacing residential second unit provisions with ADU provisions and extending sales price restrictions from 45 to 90 years.
• Program 11 (SB 9 Implementation): Explores adding requirements to restrict one unit on SB 9 lots to moderate or upper-moderate income households.
• Program 16 (Reduction of Governmental Constraints): Streamlines permit processes and amends zoning ordinances to allow multi-level housing and modernize multifamily/commercial zones within three years of adoption.
• Program 21 (Local Preference): Directs the county to study the feasibility of a local preference program for affordable housing by June 2025.
• Program 22 (Recreational Amenities): Requires annual updates to development impact fees for parks and consideration of tiered reduced fees for affordable housing projects providing public recreation.
• Program 23 (Workforce Housing Study): Directs the completion of a feasibility study on workforce housing by December 2024.

Implementation and Resources

• Staffing: Implementation requires approximately 2.75 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) annually from existing staff, with no net increase in staff positions.
• Timeline: Programs and actions must be implemented within the 2023–2031 planning period.
• Environmental Review: The Housing Element itself is exempt from CEQA under the "common sense exemption" (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)). A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) is being prepared for the potential rezones and county-owned sites, expected for public review later in the month.
• Public Outreach: Included a bilingual website, interactive maps, virtual housing simulations, a Housing Needs and Conditions Survey (538 responses), stakeholder meetings, workshops, and public hearings. The draft Housing Element received 509 comments during the statutory 30-day review period.

Board Questions and Staff Responses

• Nature of Document: Supervisor Nelson asked if the Housing Element is a planning or policy document. Staff clarified it is both, adopted as part of the General Plan, and can be amended in the future through a similar process to the current adoption.
• Budget Impact: Supervisor Nelson inquired about funding. Staff confirmed no new budget expansion is requested; existing staff will dedicate time to implementation.
• Use by Right and CEQA: Supervisor Hartman asked about environmental review exemptions. Staff confirmed that "Use by Right" projects providing 20% lower-income units are exempt from CEQA, whereas "Builder’s Remedy" projects are not.
• Residential Second Units (RSUs): Supervisor Hartman expressed concern about the removal of RSU provisions. Staff explained this updates terminology to align with current ADU laws and applies to new projects; existing RSU conditions remain valid.
• Reasonable Accommodations: Supervisor Hartman asked about removing findings for rural/scenic character compatibility. Staff explained this is required by State HCD to remove discretionary barriers for persons with disabilities seeking reasonable accommodations under existing zoning provisions.
• Farm Worker Housing: Supervisor Hartman suggested including Santa Ynez Valley in target areas for farm worker housing.
• Local Preference and Retirees/Investors: Supervisor Hartman raised concerns about housing being purchased by retirees and investors. Staff noted that successful local preference programs are typically tied to government-subsidized projects and that the county will research expanding these tools.
• County-Owned Sites: Supervisor Capps asked about the definition of "disposal" (referencing the Surplus Land Act) and why only 221 of the 320 potential units on county sites are listed as affordable. Staff explained that some units are projected as "missing middle" (120–200% AMI) to finance lower-income units, and these assumptions are not static.
• Adding Sites: Supervisor Capps asked if more sites could be added. Staff noted that adding sites now would require additional environmental review and delay the process, but units from unlisted developments can still count toward the RHNA if they occur.
• Affordability Shortfalls: Supervisor Capps expressed concern that projects may not meet affordability assumptions (e.g., Builder’s Remedy projects). Staff explained the 15% buffer and No Net Loss Law require the county to monitor and rezone additional sites if the buffer drops below 5%.
• Geographic Distribution: Supervisor Capps noted that 75% of planned units are in the Goleta Valley. Staff explained that the Eastern Goleta Valley was selected because it contains the most suitable available land (vacant, within urban area, near transit) for rezoning, as other "perfect" sites are scarce.

Staff Recommendation

• Staff recommended the Board: 1. Make required findings for approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, including CEQA findings. 2. Determine that the adoption of the Housing Element is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption. 3. Adopt a resolution to approve General Plan Amendment Case No. 22-GPA-2 to adopt the Housing Element. 4. Authorize staff to submit the adopted Housing Element to State HCD for a final conformity determination.

Staff Presentation and Q&A (Continuation)

• Staff presented the methodology used to identify sites for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Staff explained that the search included the Carpinteria Valley and former Goleta Community Plan areas, excluding rural Gaviota due to criteria mismatches. Staff reported contacting dozens of property owners, reviewing shopping centers, religious institutions, and agricultural lands. Staff stated that limited opportunities existed outside the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan area due to coastal zone restrictions, agricultural zoning, and lease obligations preventing development within the required eight-year timeframe. Staff noted that the Glen Annie Golf Course was included to provide flexibility, despite its rural location.
• Supervisor Capps expressed frustration regarding the concentration of housing units in a specific radius and questioned whether agriculture preservation was a stated goal in the Housing Element. Staff responded that agriculture policies are addressed in a separate General Plan element and that the board had not directed the identification of specific sites. Staff clarified that cannabis sites were not automatically excluded; rather, staff contacted property owners in the first district and southern coast areas, but no owners were ready to convert from agriculture to residential use within the required timeframe.
• Supervisor Williams discussed the balance between affordable and moderate-income housing, noting the importance of housing local employees and reducing regional traffic. Supervisor Nelson raised concerns about the elimination of "residential second units" in favor of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), noting that the previous zoning provisions allowed for additional privileges such as homestays. Staff confirmed that residential second units were repealed from the zoning ordinance and replaced by ADU statutes.
• Supervisor Nelson questioned Program 22, which requires the adoption of a Rec Master Plan, expressing concern that this prescribes a specific board action and may not meet CEQA thresholds. Staff stated that the program was included based on board direction regarding the connection between recreation and housing but is not a state-mandated item. Staff indicated the board could direct the removal of the timeframe. Supervisor Nelson also questioned the efficiency of the development process, citing the seven-year window and historical delays in project approval. Staff cited state provisions such as "use by right" to streamline processes and eliminate CEQA for qualifying projects, noting that developers are currently submitting applications for builder remedies.

Public Comment

• Fourteen members of the public spoke. Comments included:
• Linda Foster (Citizens Planning Association): Expressed concerns about the document and requested public workshops.
• Otis Califf (CRATAC): Supported the Glen Annie Golf Course rezone for housing and public amenities, urging the board to prioritize projects providing public recreation and trails and to use park development impact fees.
• Linda Honigman: Supported adoption but requested flexibility in site selection and a hearing to allow community input on unmet housing priorities.
• Joel Boyer: Opposed the Glen Annie Golf Course rezone, citing loss of agricultural land, traffic congestion, lack of infrastructure, and emergency evacuation concerns.
• John Polanski (Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara): Expressed strong support for the Housing Element and the rezone of the Baylor site in Carpinteria Valley.
• Diane Black (League of Women Voters): Urged adoption, requested immediate funding studies, and asked for clarification on the definition of "workforce housing."
• Dustin Hoyseth (South Coast Chamber of Commerce): Supported the Housing Element and the Glen Annie site rezone, highlighting the employer-sponsored housing consortium program.
• Jim Murray: Opposed the Glen Annie rezone, citing traffic and population density concerns, and suggested suing the state for variance.
• Mark Wilkinson (Santa Barbara County Trails Council): Urged amendments to prioritize projects providing public recreation and trails and to use park development impact fees.
• Kevin Snow: Supported prioritizing public parks and trails in the Housing Element.
• Alex Chow: Supported the rezone of lots in Mission Hills.
• Alex Van Wingerden: Supported the rezone of two family properties in Carpinteria, citing employee housing needs and agricultural challenges.

Board Discussion

• Supervisor Lavagnino commented on the upcoming rezone process and suggested considering mobile home parks as a source of affordable housing. Supervisor Hartmann discussed the "balancing tool" developed by Planning & Development to help determine housing distribution and stated that the board would bring forward an item to discuss criteria for rezones. Supervisor Nelson stated that the Housing Element contains too much policy that prescribes future board actions, expressing concern about CEQA compliance and the lack of opportunity to vet these policies. Supervisor Nelson indicated an inability to support the motion to approve the Housing Element in its current form.

Motion and Vote (Initial Attempt)

• A motion was made to approve the Housing Element. The motion was seconded. The vote was taken. The motion failed.

Agenda Item: Housing Element Plan (Reconsideration)

Discussion

• Members provided closing comments regarding the proposed Housing Element plan. Key points raised included:
• Concerns that the plan prescribes future board actions and limits flexibility, with arguments that the "cake is baked" regarding site inventories and that the rezone process offers limited active player status for the board.
• Opposition to placing 75% of South Coast units in the Gleada Valley on agricultural land, citing profound and irreversible impacts on agriculture.
• Arguments that the plan falls short of opportunities for affordability and that the county should utilize surplus property more actively.
• Counter-arguments stating that rejecting the plan would lead to "Builder’s Remedy" projects, which may result in fewer affordable units and loss of grant funding.
• Discussion on the definition of "workforce" housing, with suggestions to consider raising inclusionary requirements and acknowledging the need for housing for individuals earning 120–200% of Area Median Income (AMI).
• Acknowledgment of the technical difficulty of the HCD manual and the necessity of learning and adapting during the process.
• Support for moving forward to maintain control over the implementation process, including commercial sites and infill development, to avoid scattered development.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: To move staff recommendations A through D.
• Moved by: Steve Lavagnino.
• Seconded by: Joan Hartmann.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (3-2).

Adjournment

• The meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2023, in Santa Barbara.